I just got hacked - any help is welcome! (25,000 BTC stolen)

[allinvain]

I do, but it's not for you.

Expect no sympathy with no proof...reminds me of the lady who supposedly had acid thrown in her face randomly last year...I could be wrong...I just don't believe you any more.

Have patience man. That's fine. I don't care at the moment whether you believe me. Right now I am busy working on figuring how I got compromised and who did it.

[1714196553]

1714196553

[1714196553]

1714196553

[1714196553]

1714196553

[1714196553]

1714196553

[1714196553]

1714196553

[Swishercutter]

Blacklisting coins is just a bad idea all around.  I can see the spirit behind it, but unless you're refusing to accept coins straight from a perp, you're just going to hurt innocent people.

Keep a list, by all means, of stolen coins.  That way, we can maybe trace back and find out who committed the crime.  But coins are coins, I don't see any reason to block certain ones out and keep others.

By refusing to accept coins from a known criminal I hurt innocent people?

The whole point of blocking coins would be to take away the motivation to steal coins (or other violent acts involving Bitcoin). If you are caught, your booty is worthless. Maybe someone will think twice about going through the effort.

So say I do a trade with someone on your blacklist then I want to spend my coins with you.  In that case my coins are blacklisted...then what...if I had purchased those coins with the sole intention of purchasing your item and I cannot then I have to find other means to get rid of my coins...then suppose the blacklist caught on and everyone "voluntarily" used it...then those coins I purchased are worthless.  This discredits the value of BTC because people would get worried they could not spend the money...which forces them to use your app to prove their bitcoins will have worth wherever they are accepted...that causes centralization.

The value of the currency is its ability to be freely spent regardless of who owned it first.

You can call me obtuse if you like...I get what you are saying...its just at a point voluntary becomes mandatory...then the whole point is ruined.

[Swishercutter]

So say I do a trade with someone on your blacklist then I want to spend my coins with you.  In that case my coins are blacklisted...then what...if I had purchased those coins with the sole intention of purchasing your item and I cannot then I have to find other means to get rid of my coins...then suppose the blacklist caught on and everyone "voluntarily" used it...then those coins I purchased are worthless.  This discredits the value of BTC because people would get worried they could not spend the money...which forces them to use your app to prove their bitcoins will have worth wherever they are accepted...that causes centralization.

The value of the currency is its ability to be freely spent regardless of who owned it first.

You can call me obtuse if you like...I get what you are saying...its just at a point voluntary becomes mandatory...then the whole point is ruined.

I tell you that you have money that is tied to crime and will not accept it. If you bought coins with intentions of trading them to me, it's not my fault if I don't accept them.

If everyone voluntarily blacklists an address, there must have been hard evidence that some fucked up shit happened. By the very fact that you oppose it so much, I can see that the blacklist would be serious.

Look. Answer me a question. If I had solid proof, say photographs from a balcony of Hitler using a Bitcoin address to pay for trains to transfer Jews. Would you blacklist that address?

It does not discredit the value of Bitcoin at all. In fact it could increase the value of clean coins used in legitimate trade.

Think of all the people that want to ban Bitcoin. Imagine if we show them a way to deter Bitcoins being used for nefarious acts. It could help in making Bitcoin go main stream, without ruining everything that is great about Bitcoin. Meaning we can police ourselves. We don't need the police state to crack down.

It's akin to be a smart consumer. A lot of people bitch about large evil corporations, but they still buy the latest greatest widget offered by said evil corporation. Well the smart consumer realizes that said evil corporation is paying congress to prevent entry into the market, so they don't buy the widgets!

And with the blacklisting of addresses, they also don't do business with the morons that buy the widgets keeping said evil corporation in business.

The difficulty here is proving a crime occurred...that requires democracy of some sort...unless its a dictator based thing...then you have to set up more systems to monitor and prove these things (rarely is there the so called Hitler photo)...that leads to doubt and when a coin can be devalued (basically when you blacklist it you are decreasing its value) it ruins confidence in the currency.

Just my thoughts...

[allinvain]

Anyone read this?

http://pastebin.com/88nGp508

RC: irc.lulzco.org (channel #LulzSec | port 6697 for SSL)
    BitCoin donations: 1KPTdMb6p7H3YCwsyFqrEmKGmsHqe1Q3jg
    Twitter: @LulzSec
    Contact us: 614-LULZSEC

Notice that bitcoin donation address..hmm..

[TraderTimm]

Anyone read this?

http://pastebin.com/88nGp508

RC: irc.lulzco.org (channel #LulzSec | port 6697 for SSL)
    BitCoin donations: 1KPTdMb6p7H3YCwsyFqrEmKGmsHqe1Q3jg
    twatter: @LulzSec
    Contact us: 614-LULZSEC

Notice that bitcoin donation address..hmm..

Yeah, someone debunked that earlier, but I know in your drama-queen mode about your alleged 'lost' bitcoins you can't let it go. No one cares, sherlock.

[Swishercutter]

Anyone read this?

http://pastebin.com/88nGp508

RC: irc.lulzco.org (channel #LulzSec | port 6697 for SSL)
    BitCoin donations: 1KPTdMb6p7H3YCwsyFqrEmKGmsHqe1Q3jg
    Twitter: @LulzSec
    Contact us: 614-LULZSEC

Notice that bitcoin donation address..hmm..

Call them and ask....bet u get the lulz.

[allinvain]

Anyone read this?

http://pastebin.com/88nGp508

RC: irc.lulzco.org (channel #LulzSec | port 6697 for SSL)
    BitCoin donations: 1KPTdMb6p7H3YCwsyFqrEmKGmsHqe1Q3jg
    twatter: @LulzSec
    Contact us: 614-LULZSEC

Notice that bitcoin donation address..hmm..

Yeah, someone debunked that earlier, but I know in your drama-queen mode about your alleged 'lost' bitcoins you can't let it go. No one cares, sherlock.

My bad, I must've missed that. Can you point me to the proper thread or location where this was debunked?

[allinvain]

Plz disregard my previous post and the one about lulzsec. I found this:

http://oo.thebanzaieffect.com/2011/06/lulzsec-downs-cias-public-site-appears-to-be-subject-of-framing-attempt/

[Rob P.]

I agree, it is difficult to prove that a crime occurred. And I would never blacklist lightly. Although, I can give you a long list of corporations and governments that I would blacklist this instant, if they used Bitcoin and I had their addresses.

And that's the problem.  If, if, if.

You'll never know that a particular address belongs to a particular person unless they publish it.  Everything else is conjecture.

@allinvain knows what address has his coins.  Except they then moved them elsewhere, to LOTS of addresses, those addresses moved them to other addresses, and so on.  Are you going to blacklist every address that received any portion of the original allotment?

You're going to blacklist a large portion of the economy, because since it is voluntary, some business isn't going to get notified they should blacklist, and they're going to accept them.  Then what?  You'll blacklist because they made a mistake?  Or their blacklist notification wasn't up to speed?

Pretty soon you'll have coins and no one to spend them with.

[Rob P.]

Anyone read this?

http://pastebin.com/88nGp508

RC: irc.lulzco.org (channel #LulzSec | port 6697 for SSL)
    BitCoin donations: 1KPTdMb6p7H3YCwsyFqrEmKGmsHqe1Q3jg
    Twitter: @LulzSec
    Contact us: 614-LULZSEC

Notice that bitcoin donation address..hmm..

Call them and ask....bet u get the lulz.

That number was seized from them, no longer any good.

[Bind]

This horse isn't dead yet after all this beating ?

[joepie91]

The point is that when retailers/exchanges start following the blacklist it changes it into something that is controlled by an entity which may or may not have accurate information. 

It's just my opinion that Bitcoin is fine the way it is...if I lose all my BTC so be it...just like if I lose my cash so be it.

There is no central blacklist. There is no website that has a list. It would just be an option to avoid addresses you don't want to do business with. It's that simple.

If a retailer or an exchange chooses to blacklist an address, they lose business from that address. This isn't central control. It's voluntary.

You are trying to make the idea into big brother when it isn't. It's quite the opposite. I'll try to give you an example.

I'm suggesting everyone carry a gun to protect themselves and others from assault.

You are saying that I'm asking for a police force with authority that the average citizen doesn't have.

I'm only suggesting people police themselves. What is so scary about that?

By refusing to accept tainted coins you are indirectly forcing others to refuse them as well, because there is a risk they can't spend them on what they intended to spend them on. I am not even talking a centralized blacklist here, just the fact that there is a risk in that.

Not to mention that it's entirely impossible to implement this because there are plenty points (merchant wallets, exchanges) where coins get mixed up. You would be refusing coins for the single fact that they have at one point been used by someone with bad intentions. How does that make any logical sense?

[Nescio]

No, this would be voluntary to each individual. No central control. If you are convinced the coins were stolen, you can blacklist them to avoid transactions that involve them.

The point is that as soon as you put it in the client it becomes a vulnerability that may be exploited by central control. Masses will voluntarily accept such central control with enough propaganda/marketing.

Obviously no one would blacklist coins without solid proof.

That is naive. I'm sure a lot of people will happily blacklist any amount of coins because their congressman is photogenic or free coupons at Starbucks etc.

Yes, it would open the door to abuse by reporting other people's coins. Again, it would require hard evidence to convince me to black list an address.

Maybe you, but plenty of others will happily believe the moon is made of cheese. What if "we must freeze Pakistan's coins because they harbour terrorists"? I'm pretty sure a lot of people would do that. Put Iran on the list. Put some geezer in a rival company to the congressman's daughter's on the list too, noone will know. This is absolutely rife for abuse because you are exchanging cryptographic strength for trust in third parties with possibly limitless budgets for propaganda (OK, I *do* believe the moon landings happened, but you get what I mean. Something like that is seen as ironclad evidence by most, but could actually easily be faked today).

Don't think of this as an individual choice here, because masses are comprised of individuals, and masses are stupid.

Coins would not be lost this way, after enough time, there would be new users that don't blacklist those coins and they would be clean to trade.

You cannot predict how blacklists would be handled. If automated, they could become permanent, hereditary etc. (because you know like, we wouldn't want Hitler's grandkids getting grandpa's army building stash, you know..)

You could also blacklist coins that are linked to known "bad guys" around the world. Bad example time: Say Hitler used Bitcoin to build his army. When he buys some munitions (or whatever else) somewhere and his Bitcoin address is leaked, the people of the world could freeze his funds.

Terrible terrible idea. See above about every country and ethnic group that doesn't like eachother. This just opens up the door for perpetuating all the political, religious and ethnic feuding misery of every conflict in the world. Bitcoin must remain untainted by this.

Also, people could refuse to do business with known companies or individual that they disagree with.

Same as above. What if Alice has strong principles and blacklists every coin coming from Monsanto, Halliburton, BP, Microsoft, Oracle, Goldman Sachs etc. etc. (totaling say 1 million BTC). If cousin Bob (net worth 1 BTC) ever receives payments linking back to any of these, the amount which Bob can transfer to Alice decreases by that amount. If 5% of the economy is tainted by these companies every year, after a few years Bob cannot transact with Alice at all. And that's only if only Alice, voluntarily, blacklists on her end. Supposedly everyone is connected to everyone else in at most 6 steps on average. That means Alice will get isolated and go very hungry after a while.

You are completely disregarding the network effects here, this idea has just not been thought through.

[Nescio]

I'm suggesting everyone carry a gun to protect themselves and others from assault.

You are saying that I'm asking for a police force with authority that the average citizen doesn't have.

I'm only suggesting people police themselves. What is so scary about that?

Bad analogies and statistics. Look at murder rates of the US (the NRA^H^H^H constition says, guns for everyone, yay! (not really, but that's another discussion)) and say Europe. BTW, in every conflict between citizens and government, citizenry lost against an army equipped with tanks, planes, the lot (think 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 1995 Bosnia just to name a few), unless that army had against it the terrain, covert superpower support and total lack of scruples (Afghanistan guerilla warfare, using their own citizens as cover).

[Nescio]

Damn dude. Just wow. Can't be proven... LoL.

What he means is this: Mathematics prove cryptographic integrity. Nothing can prove human integrity.

[Nescio]

Functionality would have to be added to the client so that the transaction would never happen. It would be proactive, not reactive. I would never accept the Bitcoins in the first place.

I honestly don't know if this is technically feasible, but I think it's a fine idea.

IIUC, right now to transfer to an address you simply sign the transfer with your own private key and send the transaction to miners to be included in the blockchain. Your public key is used to verify you sent the transaction. The recipient has no say in any of this, the address has the coins whether it likes it or not (and will see the new balance on the next update).

If you want to prevent this you have to change the whole protocol by including two way communication where the recipient or a centralized db is queried (really bad idea technically too), or some kind of delay mechanism where every transaction has to wait for approval from the recipient (again really bad idea), or the blockchain includes an a priori chain of blacklisted recipient/sender address pairs. The latter is technically feasible, but is also a new avenue for attack. If someone wants to bring down the network all they do is create a bazillion wallets and generate blacklists against another bazillion sender addresses. All of that will bloat the blockchain beyond usability.

Unless you also create a blacklist against such abuse. Which would demand incontrovertible proof in each instance ROFL.

[ixne]

That means Alice will get isolated and go very hungry after a while.

...except that (granting your very extreme example) Alice could choose at any time to end her self-imposed blacklist, and no one is the worse for wear.

You people are really overthinking this.  It doesn't even have anything to do with bitcoin per se.  It is the same as writing down some addresses on a piece of paper that you don't want to trade with.  Completely non-binding.  The only reason to use a computer is that it's far easier.  Arguing against letting the client keep and update a blacklist for you is like arguing against letting the client compute hashes for you rather than getting out a pencil and paper and doing it yourself.

[Nescio]

Look. Answer me a question. If I had solid proof, say photographs from a balcony of Hitler using a Bitcoin address to pay for trains to transfer Jews. Would you blacklist that address?

*facepalm* What is this, bad science fiction? Argument fail, anyone disagreeing with you automatically invokes Godwin's Law.

[Swishercutter]

That means Alice will get isolated and go very hungry after a while.

...except that (granting your very extreme example) Alice could choose at any time to end her self-imposed blacklist, and no one is the worse for wear.

You people are really overthinking this.  It doesn't even have anything to do with bitcoin per se.  It is the same as writing down some addresses on a piece of paper that you don't want to trade with.  Completely non-binding.  The only reason to use a computer is that it's far easier.  Arguing against letting the client keep and update a blacklist for you is like arguing against letting the client compute hashes for you rather than getting out a pencil and paper and doing it yourself.

Maybe a secondary addon/background script but to actually add it to the client...then it becomes something that is the norm and will be something that is abused.  I think bitcoin is fine the way it is...honestly, I don't even see a point in adding wallet encryption when you can do it yourself...but that's just me probably.

[Nescio]

That means Alice will get isolated and go very hungry after a while.

...except that (granting your very extreme example) Alice could choose at any time to end her self-imposed blacklist, and no one is the worse for wear.

Exactly. It seems you agree it's pointless, because it's unworkable.

Arguing against letting the client keep and update a blacklist for you is like arguing against letting the client compute hashes for you rather than getting out a pencil and paper and doing it yourself.

Noone is stopping anyone from implementing this. If you do it separate from the client/network though the only thing you can do is send the coins back, which will taint your own address as well. If you include it in the client, you must make network changes which open up the network to both technical and social attacks.

If anyone is truly serious about this, they can always fork the code and the chain. Good luck.